Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pmPosts: 2455Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer

Now, we all know that no third-party candidate has a chance of winning, but it's still nice to sometimes be aware of which one you support.

Since the rest of the candidates just seem to be following the typical Libertarian doctrine and not adding anything new to the table, I think I'll go with Gravel; he has a good political history and, through a filibuster, forced Nixon to end the draft in the United States.

He also released some secret documents from the Pentagon that revealed some bad stuff about administrations' incentives for the Vietnam War or something.

But seriously, I'd probably like Ron Paul more than all of them. Most libertarians seem like either left-wingers who care a lot about social freedom or right-wingers that care a lot about economic freedom. Ron Paul seems more like a true libertarian. But I'm not a libertarian anyways, so it doesn't really matter to me.

Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2006 6:45 pmPosts: 5441Location: living in the sunling, loving in the moonlight, having a wonderful time.

This isn't on who's the best candidate or anything, because I don't know diddly about them to make a statement, however, what I want to say is this:

I am very tired of seeing people who are Libertarians, however, when you ask them any sort of political question, you find that they aren't really Libertarian at all. They'll know the party line and all, but they're actually Republican/conservative or Democratic/liberal and are just ticked off at their party, want to be radical and vote in a third party, and arbitrarily chose this one. This sounds kind of like a narrow window, but I know a large amount of people who fit this description.

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pmPosts: 2455Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer

Well, that's because the Republicans and Democrats have both shifted pretty far from their intended goals. Libertarianism provides an adequate sanctuary for both, because it promotes both economic and social freedom, creating a sanctimonious and ballin' balance of political tranquility.

Libertarianism provides an adequate sanctuary for both, because it promotes both economic and social freedom, creating a sanctimonious and ballin' balance of political tranquility.

Yeah, but like I was saying earlier, they often aren't. I would assume that libertarians care more about whichever freedom they support (social for liberals and economic for conservatives), but really they often are just very liberal or very conservative. If ontheissues.org is to trust, Mike Gravel's views are really more liberal, because he doesn't believe in the economic freedom part...

Well, that's because the Republicans and Democrats have both shifted pretty far from their intended goals. Libertarianism provides an adequate sanctuary for both, because it promotes both economic and social freedom, creating a sanctimonious and ballin' balance of political tranquility.

Libertarianism is a place for rich white kids to sit and put their fingers in their ears while ignoring everyone's problems. It's like the most vocal party that consists completely of apathy and idealism that isn't quite there.

Libertarianism is a place for rich white kids to sit and put their fingers in their ears while ignoring everyone's problems. It's like the most vocal party that consists completely of apathy and idealism that isn't quite there.

No, but I'd really like a serious explanation for Jesty's somewhat random accusations about Libertarianism.

yes I know old etc etc

I haven't seen on libertarian with viable ideas. I mean, it's simple, if you look at it. You will never see a poor libertarian because libertarianism completely ignores the economic needs of the less fortunate. Sure, things like the gold standard and the FairTax seem perfectly appealing to people with money in their pockets and a nice house. But in ends up completely screwing over anyone who doesn't: the single mother with five kids is obliterated by libertarian idealism. They do come up with some good ideas, particularly about drug control and social issues, but libertarian economics is endlessly confusing.

How does the FairTax favor the rich over the poor? Supposedly, since the rich spend a larger percentage of their income than the poor, the FairTax would have an effect like a progressive tax without being 'unfair' or anti-capitalistic. Plus, I think the libertarian idea is that it isn't worth all the money put into running things like the IRS and that we'd be better off without it.

How does the FairTax favor the rich over the poor? Supposedly, since the rich spend a larger percentage of their income than the poor, the FairTax would have an effect like a progressive tax without being 'unfair' or anti-capitalistic. Plus, I think the libertarian idea is that it isn't worth all the money put into running things like the IRS and that we'd be better off without it.

Like most of Paul's supporters, I really don't understand exactly what he wants to do. As I understand the FairTax, it would basically be a sales tax. If so, the FairTax encourages saving and wealth building, by taxing consumption. If this were is the case, you have to look at who spends a larger portion of their income. You ever hear of people that live "paycheck to paycheck"? "Paycheck to paycheck" means that someone is spending practically their entire paycheck to survive (rent, bills, food, etc.)Who do you think those people are? They're the people who are earning minimum wage or close to it. You don't see many CEO's in payday loan places. You'd see the poor end up paying a larger proportion of their income as tax.

That's just my opinion. If the FairTax works the way I think it does, then that's what would happen.

_________________If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I guess that's true, depending on whether or not they'd tax groceries, which they don't now. But even people if do save money now, everyone spends everything eventually. If they never spend their money, then it doesn't really even matter that they had it in the first place, in which case it's probably fair not to tax them.

BTW, I'm not saying I support the FairTax, Ron Paul, or all of libertarianism or anything...

Note that Ron Paul's proposal isn't the FairTax. Not sure what his proposal actually is.

StrongRad wrote:

As I understand the FairTax, it would basically be a sales tax. If so, the FairTax encourages saving and wealth building, by taxing consumption.

I disagree, if the wealthy understand money. Money is nothing but a means to an end. The whole purpose of money is to spend it, and the only reason to save money is because there might be a better use for that money than you have now. (Even then, you have to take into account that the time you spend sitting on that money is itself worth money, especially when you factor inflation in, as your dollars will probably continuously decrease in value.) So if they are going to pay the tax one way or another, and it's just a question of when, there is no incentive to save money.

Of course, my assumption that the wealthy understand money in this way might be a big one. Their logic could simply be, "Oh, things cost more, better save my money," without any of the above reasoning.

StrongRad wrote:

You'd see the poor end up paying a larger proportion of their income as tax.

Weren't there going to be rebates for poor people, though? We discussed this in the old thread a couple years ago. You can't dismiss FairTax out of hand without fully understanding what it actually is.

Note that Ron Paul's proposal isn't the FairTax. Not sure what his proposal actually is.

StrongRad wrote:

As I understand the FairTax, it would basically be a sales tax. If so, the FairTax encourages saving and wealth building, by taxing consumption.

I disagree, if the wealthy understand money. Money is nothing but a means to an end. The whole purpose of money is to spend it, and the only reason to save money is because there might be a better use for that money than you have now. (Even then, you have to take into account that the time you spend sitting on that money is itself worth money, especially when you factor inflation in, as your dollars will probably continuously decrease in value.) So if they are going to pay the tax one way or another, and it's just a question of when, there is no incentive to save money.

Of course, my assumption that the wealthy understand money in this way might be a big one. Their logic could simply be, "Oh, things cost more, better save my money," without any of the above reasoning.

StrongRad wrote:

You'd see the poor end up paying a larger proportion of their income as tax.

Weren't there going to be rebates for poor people, though? We discussed this in the old thread a couple years ago. You can't dismiss FairTax out of hand without fully understanding what it actually is.

- Kef

You're right, I can't dismiss something I don't understand. That's what democrats do. (What is R&P without a stupid statement about a political party? )What exactly is the FairTax. I've heard a couple of people say that it's Ron Paul's plan to get rid of the IRS, but none of them seem to understand what it is.As I understand his idea, Paul wanted to abolish income tax and increase the sales tax. If this is still his idea, I still think it'll hit the poorest the hardest unless there's some sort of rebate for the lowest income tax payers (yes, I am a republican, believe it or not).

What I think we need, and I think the last Libertarian presidential candidate (Badnarik) supported was a flat tax. Take whatever you make and send the government 20% or 30% or 40% or whatever (hopefully closer to 20, but whatever) of it. Have a nice day.This eliminates the several thousand page tax code, the multi-million dollars common taxpayers have to spend to get their taxes done, and most of the IRS in one fell swoop.I've thought about this from almost every angle, and I really don't see a negative.

_________________If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I couldn't disagree more.It wreaks of a hatred of rich people (and I'm guessing it was written by someone who probably doesn't make much money. Also, the assignment for republicans seems to indicate that most are rich).

What they fail to understand is that the rich DO pay more than non-rich under a flat tax and that a flat tax is proportional to one's income.

30% of $1,000,000 is a LOT more than 30% of $30,000.I love the "The Rich Get More From the Government" argument. They do, but they also would pay more than me under a flat tax.

I see no equity in requiring a 40% tax rate for someone making a certain amount of money but only 25% from someone making less.If the rich had to pay the same amount (in dollars) as the poor under a flat tax, they'd have an argument. As it is, they sound like a student with a liberal arts degree but no clue how to use it (I have a couple friends with those degrees that are doing VERY well, so that charge is more of an indictment on the person than the degree).

_________________If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pmPosts: 2455Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer

Yeah, but the fact that the libertarians picked someone who was basically the arch-enemy of libertarianism until he got kicked out of Congress is disheartening to the future of third parties everywhere.

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 7:37 pmPosts: 2455Location: oh god how did this get here I am not good with computer

I recommend Gravel's book, Citizen Power: A People's Platform if you haven't already read it. I prefer the original 1972 edition, attributed to his Senator moniker, over the recently edited edition for this election, since it provides some historical retrospect and how things were viewed in hindsight during the Nixon administration. Already you can see the seeds of libertarianism beginning to sprout within his worldview and politics, as well as a soft side and solemn respect for third-party candidates.

For the record, as you can see in the original post, I too strongly supported Gravel for the Libertarian nomination. But since that didn't turn out as I had hoped, I'd still prefer Barr over McBama (or any other third party candidates, for that matter).